Let us examine the issue for a moment.
Banning guns only affects the law-abiding citizen directly.
The complaint is that law-abiding citizens should not have access to firearms. This is for two reasons.
1. There are previously law-abiding citizens who will buy a gun legally, and then go crazy and begin killing people.
2. There are retarded parents who allow minors to use or have access to firearms.
The argument becomes that guns should be taken from all citizens, regardless of intent or use, for the fear that they may be one of the two reasons listed above.
This is an illogical argument. For three reasons.
1. The people who go crazy, are not predictable. The assumption is that only citizens can go crazy and start killing people. In fact, military personel and police, go crazy and are just as deadly as their citizen counterpart. Also, a person who is insane, does not need a gun to kill people.
2. Retarded parents exist whether they have firearms or not. The children will always suffer the consequences of the parents stupidity to inadequately protect their children. In example, the same parent who does not protect their child from a firearm, will not protect them from injury by car or any other device. They do not watch their children to ensure safety, nor do they instruct their children on the dangerous.
3. The amount of people who go crazy, or are retarded parents, is VERY, VERY, small in comparison to the amount of people who are sane, and not retarded. In essence, the amount of gun deaths is a mere fraction of the people who actually own guns.
It is illogical to remove a legal right from an entire population based on the actions of a small, unpredictable, amount of people.
A logical argument would require the banning of guns for all people- criminals, military, citizens, and police. However, this cannot happen as the military will always need guns, and criminals will always have access to guns.
Given that there are two groups in a logical argument that will always have guns, the issue then becomes, are these the only people we want to have guns?
1. The criminal is an obvious no. However, criminals will always have access to guns, as long as guns continue to be manufactured anywhere in the world. So, then we must ask ourselves, is it logical for criminals to be the only people with guns? No.
2. The military is trained in the use of guns and controlled by the government, and would seem to be a logical choice for the only group being allowed to have guns. However, logic and history indicates that when one group of people have access to a deadly technology, it will inevitablly be used against the groups of people who do not have that technology. So, then the question becomes, should the government be trusted to not take advantage of the technology? Again, history and logic echo a resounding no.
Either everyone has guns, or no one has guns. This is the only logical answer. Since technology and society allows for the manufacture of guns across the world; and it is impossible to forcefully remove guns, from people with guns, without using guns yourself; then the only logical conclusion is that all people should have access to guns, and those that abuse guns should be restricted.
This is something that the founding fathers of America recognized. As a result, it was written into law. Unfortunately, because a small amount of people are missed by the restrictions, some members of society have decided that logic should be abandoned because it is emotionally painful to recognize that not everyone is responsible, or sane.
